It's Citizenship, not Residence!
A class action was recently filed in federal court in the Northern District of California against Apple on behalf of purchasers, through iTunes, of Season 5 of the (excellent) TV show "Breaking Bad." The causes of action are under state law, but federal jurisdiction was asserted under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 USC 1332(d) , which (with some exceptions) gives federal jurisdiction to minimal diversity class actions in which "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000." All that is needed is minimal diversity - that is a case in which "any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant." But, as every first year civ pro student knows (or should know) the question is citizenship, not residence. Take a look at the complaint.
Hold your hand out Matthew R. Wilson...
This is not really a Civil Procedure question, but does this complaint actually state a claim? As I read it, plaintiffs are relying on AMC's (the production entity) definition of what constituted the season, whereas Apple (the distributor) never really made a statement in their marketing content as to what constituted their definition of the fifth season. The complaint says Apple customers "reasonably believed" that they would be getting all 16 episodes, but Apple never made any such assurance in their marketing. Can the plaintiffs really claim false advertising by transposing another legal entity's definition of what constitutes "the season?"
Posted by: K.G. Bender | 09/12/2013 at 08:43 PM
I agree. Rule 11...?
Posted by: MSG | 09/12/2013 at 09:45 PM